Friday, May 27, 2005
Look at Me (2004)
Director: Agnes Jaoui
See January for: ^Closer; ^The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou;
^Finding Neverland; ^The Aviator
See February for: ^Million Dollar Baby; ^Male and Female;
^Gentlemen Prefer Blondes; ^Love; ^Sunrise; ^Ray
See March for: ^Being Julia; ^Millions
See April for: ^Melinda and Melinda
See May for: ^ Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room ^ Chinatown; ^ Born Into Brothels
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
The French are the absolute masters of the adult romantic comedy, and Look at Me is a wonderful example of French superiority in this genre. It is film about Lolita, an ordinary and utterly insecure young woman, allowing herself to accept genuine affection from the one man in her life who cares for her. It is not clear until the final moment of the film that this is Lolita’s and Sebastien’s love-story. Director Agnes Jaoui is able to surprises us with the love story because so much more of substance is going on around Lolita and Sebastien. (Such a difference from the typical bubble-gum American romantic comedy where it may take you 10 minutes to know how the story is going to turn-out if you did not figure it out 2 weeks before when you saw the preview.) Look at Me is also about the affect of a coldly powerful, egotistical, and absolutely un-nurturing father, Cassard, on an ordinary, over-weight, and unremarkable daughter. Additionally, Look At Me is about how sudden public recognition, success and wealth effects a previously unknown, struggling and self-doubting author and his relationships.
The French are also tops at creating true to life emotional tenor in their films. Look at Me’s final moment where Lolita and Sebastien embrace and walk off into night with the promise to soon be lovers is subtle in beauty and emotion – it is simple, pure, genuine. So very different from the over-the-top endings of fireworks and wedding dresses of the American romantic comedy. It is a lovely, quiet final scene – Lolita and Sebastien walking arm in arm on the darkened trail back to the country cottage, Lolita wheeling her bike along side. Nothing more needs to be said. We know what this story has been about, we can imagine what tomorrow may be for Lolita and Sebastien yet the possibilities are numerous and uncertain.
(And perhaps we all would be better off in our relationships if we too could embrace the loveliness of today with our lovers while looking to the future for what it truly holds - equal portions of possibility and uncertainty.)
Story Synopsis:
Look at Me is a beautiful little film with a young, plain and insecure woman as its protagonist. Lolita’s low self-esteem and emotional insecurity is easy to understand once you have meet Cassard, her unbelievably egotistical and self-centered father. Cassard is a very highly respected author, publisher and intellectual who has no time for anyone but himself and gives thought to no one but himself. Cassard gives to his daughter Lolita only the smallest bits of his time and then none of his attention. As a result she is perpetually starved for his attention and recognition, and hopes her singing (her latest try at the arts) will win Cassard’s approval. It doesn’t. He will not even give a few minutes to listen to a tape of her signing she gave him with such hope. Worst still, he does not stay more than 3 minutes at the concert she has been working toward for months.
Lolita’s unsatisfying and unhealthy relationship with her father mirrors her unhealthy dating relationships. Lolita is caught in a cycle of dating men who starve her of attention and intimacy, yet for whom she jumps to please when given the smallest hint of attention. Making matters worse for her self-esteem, most men she dates do so only to meet her influential and rich father - and leave her once they have. Her current obsession, Mathieu, is no exception. When Mathieu sees Lolita at the party he belatedly invited her to he immediately gives her some writing to pass on to Cassard. Mathieu provides some superficial attention at the party but he soon has abandon Lolita and is kissing another woman as the evening ends. It is obvious that the man Lolita has been calling her boyfriend is simply taking advantage of her desperate insecurity.
Lolita’s insecurity is made more sad because she cannot accept Sebastien’s genuine affection. Lolita keeps throwing him over in her quest to please Mathieu, then Cassard, then Mathieu again. In a very telling scene Lolita is complaining continuously about her father and Sebastein correctly notes: “all you talk about is your father.” The truth of Sebastien’s observation is too much for Lolita and she blows up at Sebastien in denial. Either because she does not understand what a healthy relationship is, or because she is too afraid to accept that someone could like her for herself, Lolita continues to reject Sebastien’s affection. Sebastien decides he is through with Lolita when she invites him to her country house and then runs off to meet Mathieu at a party the moment he calls.
The cathartic moment for Lolita arrives after she loses what little hope she had in the two men in her life – she sees Mathieu kissing another woman and learns her father did not stay to see her performance. At this low point Cassard tells her Sebastien rejected a job offer from him to pursue his own writing. She finally realizes Sebastien was not interested in Cassard but cares for her. She rushes off on her bike (so very French) to find Sebastien on the darkened moonlit path. Having lost faith in ever inspiring affection in her father she is ready to accept the affection being offered by Sebastien.
A lovely ending that completes the impact of the film, making the experience a completed whole.
Note: Look at Me is less powerful, less perfect puzzle movie. What do I mean by a puzzle movie? No, not a mystery; rather one of those few movie gems that does not reveal its full emotional weight and beauty until the final scene. Then it all comes together, complete, and you are left to marvel at its perfect construction. (See analysis for Sunrise (February).)
Should you see it? In the words of Woody Allen from the end of Hollywood Ending: “Thank god for the French”!
See January for: ^Closer; ^The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou;
^Finding Neverland; ^The Aviator
See February for: ^Million Dollar Baby; ^Male and Female;
^Gentlemen Prefer Blondes; ^Love; ^Sunrise; ^Ray
See March for: ^Being Julia; ^Millions
See April for: ^Melinda and Melinda
See May for: ^ Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room ^ Chinatown; ^ Born Into Brothels
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
The French are the absolute masters of the adult romantic comedy, and Look at Me is a wonderful example of French superiority in this genre. It is film about Lolita, an ordinary and utterly insecure young woman, allowing herself to accept genuine affection from the one man in her life who cares for her. It is not clear until the final moment of the film that this is Lolita’s and Sebastien’s love-story. Director Agnes Jaoui is able to surprises us with the love story because so much more of substance is going on around Lolita and Sebastien. (Such a difference from the typical bubble-gum American romantic comedy where it may take you 10 minutes to know how the story is going to turn-out if you did not figure it out 2 weeks before when you saw the preview.) Look at Me is also about the affect of a coldly powerful, egotistical, and absolutely un-nurturing father, Cassard, on an ordinary, over-weight, and unremarkable daughter. Additionally, Look At Me is about how sudden public recognition, success and wealth effects a previously unknown, struggling and self-doubting author and his relationships.
The French are also tops at creating true to life emotional tenor in their films. Look at Me’s final moment where Lolita and Sebastien embrace and walk off into night with the promise to soon be lovers is subtle in beauty and emotion – it is simple, pure, genuine. So very different from the over-the-top endings of fireworks and wedding dresses of the American romantic comedy. It is a lovely, quiet final scene – Lolita and Sebastien walking arm in arm on the darkened trail back to the country cottage, Lolita wheeling her bike along side. Nothing more needs to be said. We know what this story has been about, we can imagine what tomorrow may be for Lolita and Sebastien yet the possibilities are numerous and uncertain.
(And perhaps we all would be better off in our relationships if we too could embrace the loveliness of today with our lovers while looking to the future for what it truly holds - equal portions of possibility and uncertainty.)
Story Synopsis:
Look at Me is a beautiful little film with a young, plain and insecure woman as its protagonist. Lolita’s low self-esteem and emotional insecurity is easy to understand once you have meet Cassard, her unbelievably egotistical and self-centered father. Cassard is a very highly respected author, publisher and intellectual who has no time for anyone but himself and gives thought to no one but himself. Cassard gives to his daughter Lolita only the smallest bits of his time and then none of his attention. As a result she is perpetually starved for his attention and recognition, and hopes her singing (her latest try at the arts) will win Cassard’s approval. It doesn’t. He will not even give a few minutes to listen to a tape of her signing she gave him with such hope. Worst still, he does not stay more than 3 minutes at the concert she has been working toward for months.
Lolita’s unsatisfying and unhealthy relationship with her father mirrors her unhealthy dating relationships. Lolita is caught in a cycle of dating men who starve her of attention and intimacy, yet for whom she jumps to please when given the smallest hint of attention. Making matters worse for her self-esteem, most men she dates do so only to meet her influential and rich father - and leave her once they have. Her current obsession, Mathieu, is no exception. When Mathieu sees Lolita at the party he belatedly invited her to he immediately gives her some writing to pass on to Cassard. Mathieu provides some superficial attention at the party but he soon has abandon Lolita and is kissing another woman as the evening ends. It is obvious that the man Lolita has been calling her boyfriend is simply taking advantage of her desperate insecurity.
Lolita’s insecurity is made more sad because she cannot accept Sebastien’s genuine affection. Lolita keeps throwing him over in her quest to please Mathieu, then Cassard, then Mathieu again. In a very telling scene Lolita is complaining continuously about her father and Sebastein correctly notes: “all you talk about is your father.” The truth of Sebastien’s observation is too much for Lolita and she blows up at Sebastien in denial. Either because she does not understand what a healthy relationship is, or because she is too afraid to accept that someone could like her for herself, Lolita continues to reject Sebastien’s affection. Sebastien decides he is through with Lolita when she invites him to her country house and then runs off to meet Mathieu at a party the moment he calls.
The cathartic moment for Lolita arrives after she loses what little hope she had in the two men in her life – she sees Mathieu kissing another woman and learns her father did not stay to see her performance. At this low point Cassard tells her Sebastien rejected a job offer from him to pursue his own writing. She finally realizes Sebastien was not interested in Cassard but cares for her. She rushes off on her bike (so very French) to find Sebastien on the darkened moonlit path. Having lost faith in ever inspiring affection in her father she is ready to accept the affection being offered by Sebastien.
A lovely ending that completes the impact of the film, making the experience a completed whole.
Note: Look at Me is less powerful, less perfect puzzle movie. What do I mean by a puzzle movie? No, not a mystery; rather one of those few movie gems that does not reveal its full emotional weight and beauty until the final scene. Then it all comes together, complete, and you are left to marvel at its perfect construction. (See analysis for Sunrise (February).)
Should you see it? In the words of Woody Allen from the end of Hollywood Ending: “Thank god for the French”!
Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room (2005)
Director: Alex Gibney
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Can a film about accounting fraud be entertaining? Oh my yes, especially when the accounting story involves deceit, lies, and greed reaching such proportions the documentary begins to feel fictional. Add in characters with the hubris of Icarus, the deal making morals of Faust, and the ability to tell bald face lies that would make Nixon blush, and you have a story that leaves you with your jaw open in disbelief for most of the 100 minutes. At its heart the Enron story is a tale of sleazy carnie-men selling snake oil at the fair, only instead of just bamboozling a few yokels they conned an entire nation with The Wall St. Journal and MSNBC serving as their makeshift stage. Sadly the story is not fiction and the local union guys putting up the electrical cables and the ordinary employees paid the biggest price, often their life-savings. Additionally, just in case you have forgotten what the frenzy of overnight riches felt like a few years back, the film does an amazing job capturing the now cliche “irrational exuberance” of ‘97-‘00.
It is much too complicated to get into the details of the Enron fraud (and after seeing the film I am motivated to read the book by the same name to clarify some of the complexity.) The basic jist is 4 or so top executives at what was once a standard oil company created an illusion of wealth - aided by outrageous accounting practices and feed by a society’s frenzy of stock appreciation – and defrauded an entire nation (admittedly a nation eager to believe the hype.) It is an amazing story of image over substance, of hype over reality. There are similarities between the all out of proportion praise business journalists heaved upon companies’ stock in the late ‘90s and the gushing usually reserved for stars or sport figures. And in a sense that is what Enron was, an over-hyped star of the late ‘90s, a time when the Dow Jones was the new Billboard Top 40 or weekend box office gross. (Though when a hyped album or movie actually sucks you lose 10 bucks or so – in this case regular folk lost life savings.)
Some of the more outrageous tidbits from the film:
· Almost every quarter of Enron’s stock boom of the late ‘90s the company reported earnings greater than the quarter before, when it actuality they were experiencing greater and greater loses – BILLIONS of dollars in loses – while saying they were making BILLIONS in profits - unbelievable.
· They were able to show profits in a number of unbelievable ways. The most outstanding was Andrew Fastow’s accounting method that allowed him to “book” profits Enron would experience in the future on today’s balance sheet. And how would he estimate these future profits? He would basically make them up out of thin air as he saw fit. And he saw fit to make sure this quarters earnings were higher than last quarters. (Further, it was clear these ventures from which Fastow was booking future profits would never turn profits!)
· Financial Institutions such as Merrill Lynch helped with the fraud. In one case Merrill bought an extremely unprofitable oil venture in Saudi Arabia from Enron so they could get that debt off their books and claim a profit. Enron had made a secret deal to buy the oil venture back with interest in a year, making this a secret loan from Merrill - which was booked as a profitable sale.
· The showstopper was the almost unimaginable fraud that caused a fake power shortage in California. Enron was able to manipulate an unregulated market to deny power to flow to the state (causing the fake power shortage) and then charge prices 1000X the regular rate to release the power – power of which their was more than sufficient supply - unbelievable.
· Perhaps equally unbelievable are the bald face lies Skilling and Lay told employees, media, annalist and Senators about the practices and financial health of Enron to the day it collapsed (and after for that matter). They sold millions of dollars of their own Enron stock to bank profits from a company they knew was headed for disaster while telling their middle class employees to keep buying the company’s stock, a deception that cost 1000s of ordinary working folk everything.
Should you see it? You must – you won’t believe your eyes.
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Can a film about accounting fraud be entertaining? Oh my yes, especially when the accounting story involves deceit, lies, and greed reaching such proportions the documentary begins to feel fictional. Add in characters with the hubris of Icarus, the deal making morals of Faust, and the ability to tell bald face lies that would make Nixon blush, and you have a story that leaves you with your jaw open in disbelief for most of the 100 minutes. At its heart the Enron story is a tale of sleazy carnie-men selling snake oil at the fair, only instead of just bamboozling a few yokels they conned an entire nation with The Wall St. Journal and MSNBC serving as their makeshift stage. Sadly the story is not fiction and the local union guys putting up the electrical cables and the ordinary employees paid the biggest price, often their life-savings. Additionally, just in case you have forgotten what the frenzy of overnight riches felt like a few years back, the film does an amazing job capturing the now cliche “irrational exuberance” of ‘97-‘00.
It is much too complicated to get into the details of the Enron fraud (and after seeing the film I am motivated to read the book by the same name to clarify some of the complexity.) The basic jist is 4 or so top executives at what was once a standard oil company created an illusion of wealth - aided by outrageous accounting practices and feed by a society’s frenzy of stock appreciation – and defrauded an entire nation (admittedly a nation eager to believe the hype.) It is an amazing story of image over substance, of hype over reality. There are similarities between the all out of proportion praise business journalists heaved upon companies’ stock in the late ‘90s and the gushing usually reserved for stars or sport figures. And in a sense that is what Enron was, an over-hyped star of the late ‘90s, a time when the Dow Jones was the new Billboard Top 40 or weekend box office gross. (Though when a hyped album or movie actually sucks you lose 10 bucks or so – in this case regular folk lost life savings.)
Some of the more outrageous tidbits from the film:
· Almost every quarter of Enron’s stock boom of the late ‘90s the company reported earnings greater than the quarter before, when it actuality they were experiencing greater and greater loses – BILLIONS of dollars in loses – while saying they were making BILLIONS in profits - unbelievable.
· They were able to show profits in a number of unbelievable ways. The most outstanding was Andrew Fastow’s accounting method that allowed him to “book” profits Enron would experience in the future on today’s balance sheet. And how would he estimate these future profits? He would basically make them up out of thin air as he saw fit. And he saw fit to make sure this quarters earnings were higher than last quarters. (Further, it was clear these ventures from which Fastow was booking future profits would never turn profits!)
· Financial Institutions such as Merrill Lynch helped with the fraud. In one case Merrill bought an extremely unprofitable oil venture in Saudi Arabia from Enron so they could get that debt off their books and claim a profit. Enron had made a secret deal to buy the oil venture back with interest in a year, making this a secret loan from Merrill - which was booked as a profitable sale.
· The showstopper was the almost unimaginable fraud that caused a fake power shortage in California. Enron was able to manipulate an unregulated market to deny power to flow to the state (causing the fake power shortage) and then charge prices 1000X the regular rate to release the power – power of which their was more than sufficient supply - unbelievable.
· Perhaps equally unbelievable are the bald face lies Skilling and Lay told employees, media, annalist and Senators about the practices and financial health of Enron to the day it collapsed (and after for that matter). They sold millions of dollars of their own Enron stock to bank profits from a company they knew was headed for disaster while telling their middle class employees to keep buying the company’s stock, a deception that cost 1000s of ordinary working folk everything.
Should you see it? You must – you won’t believe your eyes.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Chinatown (1974)
Director: Roman Polanski
* Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film, including the ending.
I need to begin with the ending, one of the darkest, most overpowering, perfect endings in film history. It is particularly enlightening to look at it in the context of classic film noir. Chinatown is a neo-noir, meaning it is a film noir that was made in 1974 rather than in the mid 1940s - early 1950s when film noirs were first labeled as such. Without the studio system's self-imposed censorship code Roman Polanski was able to create an ending with the depth of darkness a film noir such as Chinatown demands. Many 40s and 50s classic noirs were required to supply endings where justice prevailed: that is the bad guys loose, crime and corruption are punished, the guilty are exposed, etc. For example, Billy Wilder needed the co-conspirators to be exposed (and die) in the climax of Double Indemnity (a change from the ending of the source novel by James M. Cain.) This is not to say that Double Indemnity's ending doesn't work - it does - in fact it is on my list of the best movies ever made. Though it serves as an example of the Hayes Code's requirements obligating a director to punish immorality.
No such requirements existed in 1974 for Roman Polanski. Polanski was able to provide a nasty, brutal, dark ending to a nasty, brutal, dark film. As the film ends we in the audience feel as powerless and defeated as Jake. It is if we are being drag from the final scene in shock, mirroring what is happening on screen - Jake being dragged away by his partners - not believing the film is going end without retribution for Noah Cross. "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown", and with that pregnant line the heinous film snaps shut with unmatched revulsion, with innocence (the daughter) literally in the grip of evil (Noah). And damn if the ending doesn't work.
So what is this ending? It plays out it two sequences. The first is the breathe-taking, head-spinning scene where Jack Nicholson's Jake is trying to get the truth out of Faye Dunaway's Evelyn. Jake arrives as Evelyn is ready to flee Los Angeles. Jake thinks Evelyn murdered her husband having just found his glasses in her garden pond. (We in the audience are too convinced by this evidence, and her packed bags reinforce our belief.) We are dreadfully wrong. Jake is outraged believing Evelyn has been lying and withholding information from him. In his rage Jake slaps her again and again while she continues to (seemingly) lie about the identity of the young woman she has been hiding. "She's my sister" (slap) "she's my daughter" (slap) "sister" (slap) "daughter" (slap) "She's my sister and my daughter" - and finally Jake gets it, and we get it. (And Polanski has delivered as chilling a twist as you will find in cinema history.) The full power and brutality of John Houston's character, Noah Cross (Evelyn's father), slaps now at us. Noah raped Evelyn when she was 15. A daughter resulted from this incest, a daughter he has kept hidden in Mexico. Evelyn has decided she needs to be with her daughter and knows she must flee to escape her father's violent wrath.
Jake has finally uncovered the truth and he is determined to help Evelyn escape.
And the final chilling sequence: As Evelyn runs to her car to escape with her daughter Noah, their father, is there to stop them. Evelyn shoots Noah and (as if super-human) he barely flinches. Still Evelyn manages to get her daughter in her car and speed off but the police are on hand and shoot. We know Evelyn has been shot dead as the horn blares, the car rolls to a stop and her daughter screeches with horror. In the final moment the wailing, distraught daughter is deliver back into the hands of Noah. He has the most magnificently grim posture and evil countenance , twisted hands reach for her, an expression of wicked triumphant across his contorted lips. It is as if you expect him to throw a black cloak over her and magically fade into the shadows of Chinatown.
Jake's partners speak the last words as they pull him away from the scene: "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown." That is, it does not matter that you know Noah is guilty of corruption, rape, incest, murder - he is more powerful than the police, more powerful than Los Angeles, more powerful than justice itself. Evil has won, and the heinous decorum is maintained in Polanski's perfect noir.
Note: Houston is devastating as Noah Cross - simply one of the most effective villains in cinema history. His few short scenes (Houston may have 5 minutes on screen) overpower the entire film - he is like a monstrous giant looming, menacing, over Nicholson, Dunaway, over the city of LA, over the film as whole - an amazingly powerful, effective and efficient performance. (Think of Robert Mitchum in Cape Fear for an equally powerful villainous performance. Now imagine Mitchum's character succeeding in his attempt to rape and murder Gregory Peck's family and you have an equivalent of Noah's awful victory in Chinatown.)
Note 2: Nicholson's character is modeled on classic tragic figures (Oedipus for example) who relentlessly and obsessively pursue their search for truth even as it will inevitably lead to their self-destruction. Jake is driven almost against his will to keep searching for the truth undeterred after being cut, shot at, and threatened with both jail and murder, and in the end you can image him gouging out his eyes a la Oedipus sickened by the truth he finally witnessed.
Story Synopsis:
Jake is a private investigator who seems to make most of his money taking pictures of his clients' spouses having affairs. The wife of the city Water Commissioner has hired him to uncover her husband's affair. He quickly gets the photos he needs; however, the incriminating photos end up on the front pages, the husband ends up dead, and Jake, we soon discover, was set-up. Evelyn, the Water Commissioner's real wife, never hired Jake. Jake, angry about being taken, embarks unknowingly on what will be a complex and dark investigation into who set him up and who killed Evelyn's husband.
An incredibly complex conspiracy slowly emerges involving water rights, incorporating the San Fernando Valley into LA, and the building of a new reservoir. Evelyn is also a mystery as Jake knows she is concealing information and hiding the young woman who her husband supposedly had an affair with. Dunaway plays Evelyn with a wonderful paradoxical combination of suspiciousness and earnestness. When Jake finds Evelyn's husband's glasses in the pond he knows she is guilty, (and we agree). We are horribly wrong.
Should you see it: At least a few times to truly appreciate the complex and bewildering story Polanski has so skillfully created.
* Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film, including the ending.
I need to begin with the ending, one of the darkest, most overpowering, perfect endings in film history. It is particularly enlightening to look at it in the context of classic film noir. Chinatown is a neo-noir, meaning it is a film noir that was made in 1974 rather than in the mid 1940s - early 1950s when film noirs were first labeled as such. Without the studio system's self-imposed censorship code Roman Polanski was able to create an ending with the depth of darkness a film noir such as Chinatown demands. Many 40s and 50s classic noirs were required to supply endings where justice prevailed: that is the bad guys loose, crime and corruption are punished, the guilty are exposed, etc. For example, Billy Wilder needed the co-conspirators to be exposed (and die) in the climax of Double Indemnity (a change from the ending of the source novel by James M. Cain.) This is not to say that Double Indemnity's ending doesn't work - it does - in fact it is on my list of the best movies ever made. Though it serves as an example of the Hayes Code's requirements obligating a director to punish immorality.
No such requirements existed in 1974 for Roman Polanski. Polanski was able to provide a nasty, brutal, dark ending to a nasty, brutal, dark film. As the film ends we in the audience feel as powerless and defeated as Jake. It is if we are being drag from the final scene in shock, mirroring what is happening on screen - Jake being dragged away by his partners - not believing the film is going end without retribution for Noah Cross. "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown", and with that pregnant line the heinous film snaps shut with unmatched revulsion, with innocence (the daughter) literally in the grip of evil (Noah). And damn if the ending doesn't work.
So what is this ending? It plays out it two sequences. The first is the breathe-taking, head-spinning scene where Jack Nicholson's Jake is trying to get the truth out of Faye Dunaway's Evelyn. Jake arrives as Evelyn is ready to flee Los Angeles. Jake thinks Evelyn murdered her husband having just found his glasses in her garden pond. (We in the audience are too convinced by this evidence, and her packed bags reinforce our belief.) We are dreadfully wrong. Jake is outraged believing Evelyn has been lying and withholding information from him. In his rage Jake slaps her again and again while she continues to (seemingly) lie about the identity of the young woman she has been hiding. "She's my sister" (slap) "she's my daughter" (slap) "sister" (slap) "daughter" (slap) "She's my sister and my daughter" - and finally Jake gets it, and we get it. (And Polanski has delivered as chilling a twist as you will find in cinema history.) The full power and brutality of John Houston's character, Noah Cross (Evelyn's father), slaps now at us. Noah raped Evelyn when she was 15. A daughter resulted from this incest, a daughter he has kept hidden in Mexico. Evelyn has decided she needs to be with her daughter and knows she must flee to escape her father's violent wrath.
Jake has finally uncovered the truth and he is determined to help Evelyn escape.
And the final chilling sequence: As Evelyn runs to her car to escape with her daughter Noah, their father, is there to stop them. Evelyn shoots Noah and (as if super-human) he barely flinches. Still Evelyn manages to get her daughter in her car and speed off but the police are on hand and shoot. We know Evelyn has been shot dead as the horn blares, the car rolls to a stop and her daughter screeches with horror. In the final moment the wailing, distraught daughter is deliver back into the hands of Noah. He has the most magnificently grim posture and evil countenance , twisted hands reach for her, an expression of wicked triumphant across his contorted lips. It is as if you expect him to throw a black cloak over her and magically fade into the shadows of Chinatown.
Jake's partners speak the last words as they pull him away from the scene: "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown." That is, it does not matter that you know Noah is guilty of corruption, rape, incest, murder - he is more powerful than the police, more powerful than Los Angeles, more powerful than justice itself. Evil has won, and the heinous decorum is maintained in Polanski's perfect noir.
Note: Houston is devastating as Noah Cross - simply one of the most effective villains in cinema history. His few short scenes (Houston may have 5 minutes on screen) overpower the entire film - he is like a monstrous giant looming, menacing, over Nicholson, Dunaway, over the city of LA, over the film as whole - an amazingly powerful, effective and efficient performance. (Think of Robert Mitchum in Cape Fear for an equally powerful villainous performance. Now imagine Mitchum's character succeeding in his attempt to rape and murder Gregory Peck's family and you have an equivalent of Noah's awful victory in Chinatown.)
Note 2: Nicholson's character is modeled on classic tragic figures (Oedipus for example) who relentlessly and obsessively pursue their search for truth even as it will inevitably lead to their self-destruction. Jake is driven almost against his will to keep searching for the truth undeterred after being cut, shot at, and threatened with both jail and murder, and in the end you can image him gouging out his eyes a la Oedipus sickened by the truth he finally witnessed.
Story Synopsis:
Jake is a private investigator who seems to make most of his money taking pictures of his clients' spouses having affairs. The wife of the city Water Commissioner has hired him to uncover her husband's affair. He quickly gets the photos he needs; however, the incriminating photos end up on the front pages, the husband ends up dead, and Jake, we soon discover, was set-up. Evelyn, the Water Commissioner's real wife, never hired Jake. Jake, angry about being taken, embarks unknowingly on what will be a complex and dark investigation into who set him up and who killed Evelyn's husband.
An incredibly complex conspiracy slowly emerges involving water rights, incorporating the San Fernando Valley into LA, and the building of a new reservoir. Evelyn is also a mystery as Jake knows she is concealing information and hiding the young woman who her husband supposedly had an affair with. Dunaway plays Evelyn with a wonderful paradoxical combination of suspiciousness and earnestness. When Jake finds Evelyn's husband's glasses in the pond he knows she is guilty, (and we agree). We are horribly wrong.
Should you see it: At least a few times to truly appreciate the complex and bewildering story Polanski has so skillfully created.
Born Into Brothels (2004)
Director: Zana Briski & Ross Kauffman
* Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Born into Brothels is an engrossing film documenting the lives of a dozen or so Indian children born and living in the brothels of Calcutta’s slums. Can the interest of a British photographer, Zana Briski, make a difference in their lives?
The main effect of the film (for me), aside from my amazement glimpsing a world previous unknown, was to cause reflection upon the privilege and opulence of our own society so easily forgotten, so easily unappreciated. Those us who are merely median income middle class are blind to our own abundance as we live in a society hyperaware of those more prosperous. Appreciate and be aware were the messages I took from the film as I walked home contemplating.
In Born Into Brothels Zana Briski, a philanthropic British photojournalist, has provided cameras and photography lessons to a group of a dozen or so Indian children. These children capture their own starling lives: 10 year olds living in the poverty, dysfunction and hopelessness of a Calcutta brothel. The film merely presents what they themselves have documented.
Perhaps the most emblematic and emotionally poignant moment comes after the children’s beach outing organized by Zana. On the beach we see the children become, well, children, playing with the unbridled joy of any ten-year-olds in the sand and waves. This joy is matched in degree by the oppressive hopelessness experienced upon returning home to the overcrowded Calcutta slums. We witness the children walking past lines of men in front of the brothels that are the children’s homes, and we realize how overwhelming the odds are any of these children will escape this destitute life.
The hope and drama of the film revolves around Zana’s attempts to get the children into good schools and potentially on a path away from the brothel work they are otherwise destine to enter. She succeeds in the short term, using all her influence, education and money to get these children no wants into the best Calcutta schools. Yet in the end we cannot say that Zana has succeeded. The final title cards tell us the vast majority of the kids whom she fought for have been withdrawn from school by their parents. (I believe only 1 of the kids was still in school by the time the film wrapped.) The majority of the children were headed toward life in the brothels. Even with Zana’s diligent effort and her success bringing the story of these children to world attention there seems very little hope the children will ever escape from Calcutta’s red light slums.
So very sad.
Should you see it? Yes, so you can appreciate at home and become aware abroad.
* Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Born into Brothels is an engrossing film documenting the lives of a dozen or so Indian children born and living in the brothels of Calcutta’s slums. Can the interest of a British photographer, Zana Briski, make a difference in their lives?
The main effect of the film (for me), aside from my amazement glimpsing a world previous unknown, was to cause reflection upon the privilege and opulence of our own society so easily forgotten, so easily unappreciated. Those us who are merely median income middle class are blind to our own abundance as we live in a society hyperaware of those more prosperous. Appreciate and be aware were the messages I took from the film as I walked home contemplating.
In Born Into Brothels Zana Briski, a philanthropic British photojournalist, has provided cameras and photography lessons to a group of a dozen or so Indian children. These children capture their own starling lives: 10 year olds living in the poverty, dysfunction and hopelessness of a Calcutta brothel. The film merely presents what they themselves have documented.
Perhaps the most emblematic and emotionally poignant moment comes after the children’s beach outing organized by Zana. On the beach we see the children become, well, children, playing with the unbridled joy of any ten-year-olds in the sand and waves. This joy is matched in degree by the oppressive hopelessness experienced upon returning home to the overcrowded Calcutta slums. We witness the children walking past lines of men in front of the brothels that are the children’s homes, and we realize how overwhelming the odds are any of these children will escape this destitute life.
The hope and drama of the film revolves around Zana’s attempts to get the children into good schools and potentially on a path away from the brothel work they are otherwise destine to enter. She succeeds in the short term, using all her influence, education and money to get these children no wants into the best Calcutta schools. Yet in the end we cannot say that Zana has succeeded. The final title cards tell us the vast majority of the kids whom she fought for have been withdrawn from school by their parents. (I believe only 1 of the kids was still in school by the time the film wrapped.) The majority of the children were headed toward life in the brothels. Even with Zana’s diligent effort and her success bringing the story of these children to world attention there seems very little hope the children will ever escape from Calcutta’s red light slums.
So very sad.
Should you see it? Yes, so you can appreciate at home and become aware abroad.
